Formalisation versus tacitnesskeys for creating and sharing knowledge in innovative large organisations

  1. Sousa, Maria José
  2. González-Loureiro, Miguel
Revista:
Independent Journal of Management & Production

ISSN: 2236-269X

Ano de publicación: 2015

Volume: 6

Número: 1

Páxinas: 182-202

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.14807/IJMP.V6I1.251 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Independent Journal of Management & Production

Resumo

In the situated learning theory, we disclose the existence of some tensions that may arise from two opposite forces within a context of communities of practice: the need for formalisation (large enterprises) and tacitness (creativity and innovation). Our study focuses on how these tensions are dealt with in a case study of a Portuguese innovative large enterprise that has developed a knowledge strategy over the last decade. The keys for overcoming this risky confrontation are related to a combination of “knowledge vision” and the coordinator and culture roles. A question to be addressed by firms in similar situation is “who-knows-what”, in order to identify the key knowledge that must be transformed from tacit into explicit. This would avoid wasting too many resources on making explicit the wrong tacit knowledge. Further research is required in other firms and contexts, on a still underestimated problem within communities of practice

Referencias bibliográficas

  • AMIN, A.; ROBERTS, J. (2008) Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice, Research Policy, v. 37, n. 2, p. 353-369.
  • BERTELS, H. M. J.; KLEINSCHMIDT, E. J.; KOEN, P. A. (2011) Communities of Practice versus Organizational Climate: Which One Matters More to Dispersed Collaboration in the Front End of Innovation?, Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 28, n. 5, p. 757-772.
  • BLACKLER, F. (1995) Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation, Organization Studies, v. 16, n. 6, p. 1021-1046.
  • BOGENRIEDER, I.; NOOTEBOOM, B. (2004) Learning groups: what types are there? A theoretical analysis and an empirical study in a consultancy firm, Organization Studies, v. 25, n. 2, p. 287-313.
  • BOURDIEU, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ Press.
  • BROWN, J. S.; DUGUID, P. (1991) Organizational Learning and Communities-Of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation, Organization Science, v. 2, n. 1, p. 40-57.
  • BROWN, J. S.; DUGUID, P. (2001) Structure and spontaneity: knowledge and organization, In: NONAKA, I.; TEECE, D. J. (eds) Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization. London: Sage, p. 44-67.
  • CLARK, P.; STAUNTON, N.; ROGERS. E. (1993) Innovation in Technology and Organization. London, UK: Routledge.
  • COGHLAN, D. (2001) Insider action research projects - Implications for practising managers, Management Learning, v. 32, n. 1, p. 49-60.
  • COGHLAN, D. (2003) Practitioner research for organizational knowledge, Management Learning, v. 34, n. 4, p. 451-463.
  • CONTU, A.; WILLMOTT, H. (2000) Comment on Wenger and Yanow. Knowing in practice: a “delicate flower” in the organizational learning field, Organization, v. 7, n. 2, p. 269-276.
  • COUGHLAN, P.; COGHLAN, D. (2002) Action research for operations management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 22, n. 2, p. 220-240.
  • COX, A. (2005) What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works, Journal of Information Science, v. 31, n. 6, p. 527-540.
  • DAVENPORT, T. H.; PRUSAK, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they Know. Boston: Harvard Business School.
  • EASTERBY-SMITH, M. (1997) Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques, Human Relations, v. 50, n. 9, p. 1085-1113.
  • FAHEY, L.; PRUSAK L. (1998) The Eleven Sins of Knowledge Management, California Management Review, v. 40, n. 3, p. 265-276.
  • FENWICK, T. (2008) Understanding relations of individual collective learning in work: A review of research, Management Learning, v. 39, n. 3, p. 227-243.
  • FRAPPAOLO, C. (2008) Implicit knowledge, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, v. 6, n. 1, p. 23-25.
  • GONZÁLEZ-LOUREIRO, M.; FIGUEROA DORREGO, P. (2012) Intellectual capital and System of Innovation: what really matters at innovative SMEs, Intangible Capital, v. 8, n. 2, p. 239-274.
  • GONZÁLEZ-LOUREIRO, M.; PITA-CASTELO, J. (2012) A model for assessing the contribution of innovative SMEs to economic growth: The intangible approach, Economics Letters, v. 116, n. 3, p. 312-315.
  • GOURLAY, S. (2006) Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory, Journal of Management Studies, v. 43, n. 7, p. 1415-1436.
  • GRANT, R. M. (1996) Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm, Strategic Management Journal, n. 17(winter special issue), p. 109-122.
  • HANDLEY, K.; STURDY, A.; FINCHAM, R.; CLARK, T. (2006) Within and beyond communities of practice: Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice, Journal of Management Studies, v. 43, n. 3, p. 641-653.
  • HEDLUND, G.; NONAKA, I. (1993) Models of knowledge management in the West and Japan, In: LORANGE, B.; CHAKRAVARTHY, B.; ROOS, J.; VAN DE VEN, H. (eds) Implementing Strategic Processes, Change, Learning and Cooperation. London: Macmillan, p. 117-144.
  • KEEGAN, A.; TURNER, J. R. (2001) Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices, Management Learning, v. 32, n. 1, p. 77-98.
  • KIRKMAN, B. L.; MATHIEU, J. E.; CORDERY, J. L.; ROSEN, B.; KUKENBERGER, M. (2011) Managing a New Collaborative Entity in Business Organizations: Understanding Organizational Communities of Practice Effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 96, n. 6, p. 1234-1245.
  • LAVE, J.; WENGER, E. C. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • LERVIK, J. E.; FAHY, K. M.; EASTERBY-SMITH, M. (2010) Temporal dynamics of situated learning in organizations, Management Learning, v. 41, n. 3, p. 285-301.
  • MCADAM, R.; MCCREEDY, S. (1999) The process of knowledge management within organizations: a critical assessment of both theory and practice, Knowledge and Process Management, v. 6, n. 2, p. 101-113.
  • MOLLOY, J. C.; CHADWICK, C.; PLOYHART, R. E.; GOLDEN, S. J. (2011) Making Intangibles “Tangible” in Tests of Resource-Based Theory: A Multidisciplinary Construct Validation Approach, Journal of Management, v. 37, n. 5, p. 1496-1518.
  • MUTCH, A. (2003) Communities of practice and habitus: A critique, Organization Studies, v. 24, n. 3, p. 383-401.
  • NONAKA, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation, Organisation Science, v. 5, n. 1, p. 14–37.
  • NONAKA, I.; TAKEUCHI, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York etc. Oxford University Press, 1995: Oxford University Press.
  • NONAKA, I.; KONNO, N. (1998) The concept of "ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation, California Management Review, v. 40, n. 3, p. 40-54.
  • NONAKA, I.; TOYAMA, R. (2002) A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm, Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 11, n. 5, p. 995-1009.
  • NONAKA, I.; VON KROGH, G.; VOELPEL, S. (2006) Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: Evolutionary Paths and Future Advances, Organization Studies, v. 27, n. 8, p. 1179-1208.
  • POLANYI, M. (1962) Personal Knowledge.University of Chicago Press Chicago.
  • POLANYI, M. (1966) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
  • REID, C. (2003) We’re not a part of society, we don’t have a say: exclusion as a determinant of poor women’s health. In: M. Segal, V. Demos & J. J. Kronenfeld, eds. Advances in gender research: gender perspectives on health and medicine - key themes. New York: JAI. v. 7, p. 227-275.
  • ROBERTS, J. (2006) Limits to communities of practice, Journal of Management Studies, v. 43, n. 3, p. 623-639.
  • SCHULZ, M.; JOBE, L. A. (2001) Codification and tacitness as knowledge management strategies: An empirical exploration, Journal of High Technology Management Research, v. 12, n. 1, p. 139-165.
  • SCHÜTT, P. (2003) The post-Nonaka knowledge management, Journal of Universal Computer Science, v. 9, n. 6, p. 451-462.
  • SOUSA, M. J. (2013) Knowledge Profiles Boosting Innovation. Knowledge Management, v. 12, n. 4, p. 35-46
  • SOUSA, M. J. (2010) Dynamic knowledge: An Action Research Project. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, v. 10, n. 1.
  • SOUZA-SILVA, J. C. (2009) Conditions and Challenges for the Rise of Communities of Practice in Organizations, Rae-Revista De Administracao De Empresas, v. 49, n. 2, p. 176-189.
  • SPENDER, J. C. (1996) Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, n. 17 (Winter Special Issue), p. 45-62.
  • SWAN, J.; SCARBROUGH, H.; ROBERTSON, M. (2002) The construction of 'communities of practice' in the management of innovation, Management Learning, v. 33, n. 4, p. 477-496.
  • VON KROGH, G.; ICHIJŌ, K.; NONAKA, I. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
  • WENGER, E. C. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Pr.
  • WENGER, E. C. (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems, Organization, v. 7, n. 2, p. 225-246.
  • WENGER, E. C.; MCDERMOTT, R. A.; SNYDER, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • WESTBROOK, R. (1995) Action research: A new paradigm for research in production and operations management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, v. 15, n. 12, p. 6-20.
  • ZBORALSKI, K. (2009) Antecedents of knowledge sharing in communities of practice, Journal of Knowledge Management, v. 13, n. 3, p. 90-101.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet